Re: [xml-dev] What are the practical, negative consequences ofthinking t

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka@gmail.com> wrote:

The way Rick sees it makes alot of sense to me (but I would find room for RDF in the picture), whereas I find some of the other comments bemusing.

Why isn't there much of a corresponding debate between XML and RDF (or JSON and RDF)?

Well XML vs JSON is an issue is because the JSON community see their ecosystem as replacing rather than co-existing alongside other ecosystems (XML in particular). The attitude is JSON and it's ecosystem is all you need. The ability to deploy XSLT/XQuery 3.0 (or JSONiq for that matter) is largely irrelevant, because your chances of being able to deploy any of them in a JSON shop are slim to zero.

Given that, being neutral wrt the two formats would imply being perfectly comfortable discarding XML (ecosystem and all) and switching to a typical JSON ecosystem. If I were not comfortable advocating such then I wouldn't be expressing neutrality.

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Rick Jelliffe <rjelliffe@allette.com.au> wrote:
Here is kinda how I see it. How do others see it?

           |          Fields       |    Literature
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ephemeral      | i.e. messages: JSON | HTML
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stored       | i.e. records: XML+XSD | XML

Rick

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org> wrote:

Simon St. Laurent wrote:

Ø I think that none of the data-centric cases

Ø where this conversation tends to take place

Ø are even appropriate use cases for XML at

Ø this point.

That is a fascinating statement Simon!

Would you elaborate please? I’d like to understand more fully what you mean.

Isn’t XML necessarily about data, i.e., data-focused, data-centric?

What are the appropriate use cases for XML at this point in history?

/Roger